One regular and boring argument proposed by some is that the camera doesn’t matter. That’s hogwash. A good quality camera is vitally important for photography, and here’s why.
I often wonder at some photographers’ motives for suggesting that the camera is unimportant in achieving a good image. Do they mistakenly believe are better than anyone else and, in their ignorance, have found that their photography skills were not improved by their top-of-the-range camera? Consequently, they think that good-quality cameras make no difference.
Perhaps they have entry-level cameras and don’t realize what a big difference a better camera can make. Or are they intent on holding others back? Maybe they are just argumentative curmudgeons with chips on their shoulders that get a perverse kick out of spreading negativity and derision; we've all come across people like that.
Whatever their reasons, their arguments why the camera doesn’t matter don’t stand up to scrutiny. Their line of reasoning usually follows that it’s the photographer who creates a great photo and the camera has very little to do with it. To some extent that is true. A bad photographer with a good camera won’t take great photos. Likewise, a skilled photographer will be able to create good images with a low-budget camera. But it is not as simplistic as that.
The Best Camera Is Not Necessarily the One You Have With You
Moreover, however well-intentioned, glib statements like, “the best camera is the one you have with you,” are unhelpful. It just happens to be the only camera you have with you, so it’s also the worst. If you are a wildlife photographer and all you have is a cell phone when you spot a yellow-bellied sapsucker at the top of a tree, the camera you have with you is wholly inadequate and you might as well have no camera at all.
Of course, the camera is not as crucial as the skills of the photographer. Nevertheless, it is still a very important factor in creating a photo and there is very good evidence to prove that.
Why Buying a Better Camera Is Worth the Investment
There’s a strong case for arguing that beginners should buy the best cameras they can afford.
I’m an inept guitar player. I can just about strum along to most songs, and pluck notes in a stumbling, self-taught, unorthodox manner. As much as I would like to dream otherwise, I am no Django Reinhardt, Mark Knopfler, or James Taylor. Nevertheless, my playing is considerably better if I have an instrument that has a nice low action and good quality strings rather than one with a cheap plywood body, a neck that bows inwards, and frets that buzz. Superior quality guitars sound better even with my lowly abilities. With a good guitar, I can get far less unbearable results. It's also more enjoyable to play. The same applies to almost every other rookie musician and musical instrument.
If you give any budding artists superior tools to work with, they will get better outcomes. That is why, when he was a child, we always bought our son the best-quality drawing and painting materials possible so he could achieve the results he wanted. If we had provided him with washed-out watercolor blocks, crumbling pencils, and overly waxy crayons from a discount store in the local mall, his vision of what he wanted to achieve would have exceeded his capabilities. The restrictions of poor-quality tools would have held him back. He’s now studying art at university and, through hard work, is talented at what he does.
I have friends who trained as a chef, a carpenter, a potter, a baker, an electronics engineer, a mechanical engineer, and an engraver. When learning they were all advised to buy the best tools possible. When I worked in outdoor education, all the instructors and coaches bought top-quality climbing gear, waterproofs, hiking boots, and canoe paddles. In fact, I can’t think of any creative activity or trade where top-grade tools are not important for achieving the best possible results. Why would the same not be true of photography?
Similarly, a photographer can be held back by inferior gear because it restricts their chances of taking better photos. For example, many of the cheapest DSLRs you find in Costco and Walmart have appallingly small viewfinders that make it difficult to frame a shot. The maximum and minimum shutter speeds will be limited, so the creative possibilities will be curbed. Besides their slow focusing speeds, those cheap cameras have a limited number of focus points making it harder to frame a shot, especially if the subject is at the side of the frame. Let’s not forget also, like those low-priced plywood guitars, if it looks and feels like cheap, plastic garbage, it isn’t going to inspire the photographer.
Furthermore, the lenses that are provided with those bargain-basement cameras are usually dull and not as sharp as they might be.
Don't Fall for the Marketing Hype
Yet, the purveyors of these low-quality cameras make them out to be amazing tools and the means to instantly become a premier photographer. That is not true. How many cheap DSLRs are sitting in cupboards and drawers, abandoned because their owners were deceived into believing that they would turn them into the next Eve Arnold, Ansel Adams, or Annie Leibovitz?
Considering the millions of units that have been sold over the last 20 years, and the majority of sales were in the entry-level range, many DSLRs must be stored away, barely used, never seeing daylight.
If you disagree with that argument, then the only alternative is that those cameras broke. Indeed, those cheap cameras are landfill fodder. Designed to fail, they have relatively short shutter lives, poorly made components, and built-in obsolescence. Consequently, they are a false economy with their cost per click far higher that more expensive cameras on the market.
It’s for those reasons I believe that every photographer should buy the best camera and lenses that they can afford.
You'll Quickly Grow Out of an Entry-Level Camera
Of course, some beginner photographers aren’t put off by their cheap gear and, despite that hindrance, they persevere. But that early progression from being a novice to an intermediate-level photographer has a steep learning curve. Soon, they outgrow the entry-level model and so need to replace their camera with one that has the functionality they require.
As a result, the world is cluttered with more plastic waste. What is more, tons of carbon dioxide and pollutants go into the air, and waterways are contaminated by that unnecessary manufacturing. That’s before we mention the damage brought about by mining the rare metals required to create the circuit boards in the cameras or considered the cheap labor in the human-rights-abusing countries where many of them are made.
Famous Photographers Don't Mention Their Cameras, Do They?
When discussing this with someone recently, I was told to look at this or that famous photographer and point out that they never talk about their cameras. That may indeed be true in a few cases, but if you research most of the great names, they have nearly all talked and written fondly about the cameras they use and have used.
Then, look next at contemporary professional photographers and consider the cameras they use; the brand doesn’t matter, but they are all employing top-of-the-range gear. Or, if you visit the elite professional studios, they shoot with the best0quality cameras too. Furthermore, all the brands have some astounding photographers as both employees and ambassadors. They are not using the cheapest cameras in their day-to-day work but the ones far higher up the tree.
Room to Grow into the Camera
But what about the complexity of the higher-quality cameras, I hear the nay-sayers shout. They are too confusing for beginners to use. I find that argument insulting to novice photographers. Who should judge what another is or isn’t capable of? Over the years I have run hundreds of workshops, and there is not a single client who would not have had the capability to take photos using any of the cameras illustrating this article if they had owned it.
Photography requires learning and it is one of the most technical of art forms. If someone has the intelligence to get their head around the exposure triangle, then there is nothing on a flagship camera they won’t learn to use. Furthermore, even the flagship models have advanced average metering, program exposure modes, simple autofocus settings, auto ISO and white balance, and can shoot JPEGs. In short, you can use an EOS R3, a Sony a9 II, a Nikon Z9, and an OM-1 as point-and-shoot cameras. Yes, they are all complex, precision instruments, and there is plenty of space to grow into them as learning progresses.
Not Everyone Can Afford the Top-End Cameras
I would be hard-pushed to afford some of the flagship cameras on the market today. If I were to spend the best part of $6,000 on a flagship Canon EOS R3, Sony a1, or Nikon D6, my wife would probably buy a shotgun.
However, there are other top-of-the-range models for half that price. The Fujifilm X-H2S, the Panasonic Lumix S1R, and the OM System OM-1 are all professional-level cameras that offer exceptional performance for much less.
Additionally, one can look for used flagship models that sell for a fraction of the original price. The original award-winning Olympus OM-D E-M1 first retailed 10 years ago at $1,400. At the time of writing, it could be bought at B&H for $280. In that way, you get a lot more for that money than any entry-level camera that costs $100 more. Likewise, a used Sony Alpha a7 was listed at under $540, and that cost around $1700 new, although that was sold as I was writing this article.
If flagship models are out of your price range and you want a new camera, then most manufacturers have high-end enthusiasts and slightly lower-specced professional cameras that can save you hundreds of dollars. These are far better than the bottom-end models.
Is Your Smartphone's Camera Good Enough for What You Need
Although the advent of the smartphone ripped the budget camera market apart, some manufacturers still see entry-level cameras as their cash cow. For point-and-shoot photography, there is little need for most people to own an interchangeable lens camera (ILC). The sensor and processor technology in many phones is so good that for day-to-day photography - which accounts for the majority of the 1.6 trillion photos that will be shot this year - they are perfect. Even budget cell phones have amazing cameras. A cheap DSLR with a trashy lens used in auto mode will make very little difference for those sorts of photos.
It’s only when the photographer starts to specialize and wants to do more than just compose a frame that they need an ILC to achieve their goals. That’s the time to buy the best camera possible. Likewise, the best lenses.
There’s one final reason for encouraging people to get into photography with better cameras. It will encourage competition at the top end of the market. Currently, the big manufacturers make it difficult for users to leave the brand. Those photographers who initially invested in a budget-level camera and were not disheartened by its poor quality will want their next camera to be compatible with the lenses and other accessories they already have. So, they stick with that brand. If, however, they realize from the start that they should buy a better camera, they will compare prices higher up the ladder and see what they can get for their money. That competition at the top end will push prices down. That must be good for all photographers.
Of course, there will always be exceptions to what I have written. Moreover, this point of view is thinking out of the box and it challenges commonly held beliefs. But do you agree or disagree with me? Did you quickly find an entry-level camera too restricting? Is your top-of-the-range camera too difficult for you to use? It would be great to hear and discuss your thoughts in the comments.
Didn't read all the comments, but apparently nobody noticed an obvious logical fault in the text. In the middle of the article you mention "...chef, a carpenter, a potter, a baker, an electronics engineer, a mechanical engineer, and an engraver..." as an example, but they were professionals, buying the best gear they can afford. However, your article is about "...Beginners Should Avoid Entry-Level Cameras". How come? That said, I myself started with not the cheapest crop camera and a kit lens, but a proper (albeit cheapest) D610 and 24-70 f/2.8. Never regretted that decision.
Sadly many entry level cameras are the least friendly cameras for beginners. For example, pricing was not a concern, a beginner would have a better experience compared to any of the major entry level cameras, a total beginner would have a better initial experience with a camera like a Sony A1, Nikon Z9, Canon EOS R3. Even though those cameras are targeted at more professional users, the user experience is far better than the entry level ones.
This also applies to many other industries. For example, compare Photoshop elements, to Photoshop CC. Photoshop elements, even for simple and basic photo editing work, is far more difficult on Photoshop elements, as you spend more time effectively feeling like you have to trick the software into doing what you want rather than just spending time doing the edits that you want.
With the traditional entry level price range is effectively gone due to camera makers taking a page out of the GPU scalper books, where someone looking to purchase a new camera as their first step into the Sony ecosystem, will likely just get a Sony A7 III. And someone entering the Nikon would probably go for the Nikon Z5 (or nothing if they are interested in video capabilities as well, then they will wait for a refresh of the camera lineup). For Canon, they would go for EOS R8.
While a beginner may not use every feature a pro focused camera has to offer, what typically happens is they end end up with needing 1 feature that leaves the realm of the most basic features.
In the past with DSLRs, where was a wide selection of entry level cameras at entry level prices, but many contained artificial firmware restrictions that made them the worse possible choice for a beginner. For example unnecessarily restricting lens calibration functions. I have seen a number of people blame themselves for not knowing how to use a camera and moving back to their smartphone, and effectively swearing off DSLRs, because their photos were constantly blurry, and the issues turned out to be calibration issues where their camera would constantly front or back focus, and they were not aware issues like that could happen, and to make matters worse, the entry level camera which has looser tolerances, and thus more likely to experience calibration issues. To make matters worse, the looser tolerances translates to servicing as well, thus unless a camera significantly out of spec, often times a warranty repair will not result in them fixing anything, especially in cases of an entry level 35mm lens on an entry level camera. For example, Nikon finds this level of back focus acceptable for an entry level DSLR (make matters worse, the entry level primes such as the 35mm f/1.8 dx have a lot of LoCA) (in the image below, the object is next to the 60mm line). I have also encountered many issues with lower end stuff, and ultimately the only workaround in those cases has been to simply avoid first party lenses, and get 3rd party ones that support lens calibration, because with the camera makers, the lower end you go, the looser tolerances they will have.
With mirrorless, the lens calibration becomes a nonissue, but currently it is hard to tell how far they will cut corners on entry level mirrorless cameras if they start to target those entry level DSLR price points (even though the mirrorless should have a lower BOM cost).
With all of that in mind, if someone is just starting out, entry level cameras are not a very good choice, mainly due to industry practices that will result in someone having their passion for photography crushed or running into issues and limitations that they may not be aware of, where blame for the issue will be misplaced.
Thanks fot the comment. I think you might have missed that I wrote, "When learning they were all advised to buy the best tools possible." It's good to hear that you agree, though.
Indeed I missed that part, my bad.
When you are a beginner you don’t know what you are going to need. If you solely shoot landscapes you don’t need an advanced autofocus system and high frame rates, a Sony a9 or Canon r3 would be a waste of money and the lightweight m43 camera would be easy to carry . I started off with landscape photography but got into concert photography and that required different capabilities from the camera, if I bought a camera with a small sensor I would be off worse than if I bought an entry level full frame. If I wanted to photograph birds in flight , my entry level full frame would be inadequate. I started with a canon EOS 1000D it wasn’t expensive and I learned the basics on it, then bought a 60D a few years later and than after a few years discovered that a full frame camera best suited my needs. I don’t regret starting entry level.
In general, I would disagree with this post. Saying things like not having a camera is as good as having a bad camera is patent nonsense. There are no bad cameras today. There hasn't been a bad camera in the last ten years. The worst camera in the last decade is still a good camera.
It is true that a good photographer will do better with a high-end camera (and lens) than he would with an entry level one, most of the time (though not always). IMO, one needs the equipment to match what you're trying to achieve. You also need the talent to match what one is trying to achieve. If it's a choice, talent trumps equipment. Part of talent is experience and knowledge, and experience and knowledge tells one what one can achieve with the equipment at hand.
Technically good pictures are overrated. No good photo becomes a great one just because it's tack sharp or has perfect dynamic range. Composition and timing makes a great photograph.
My first ILC was a humble Canon 600D, and the EF-S18-200/3.5-5.6 that I picked over the 18-55mm kit lens that came with it. Over the next six years, I shot exclusively with this entry level DSLR, during which I progressed from hobbyist to part-time paid photojournalist within three years. Pix I took with that camera and lens as a freelance photojourno made it onto about 6-8 magazine covers. After six years, I realised that my little 600D had technical limitations and I began to rent 5Ds and 6Ds for jobs, as I transitioned to my current full-time professional career. Last year I bought an R6. Are my photographs shot with a 5D, 6D, and R6 better than the ones I shot with my old 600D? Some are. But some aren't. They certainly are technically better, but as I said, technical perfection doesn't make a great photo.
So in conclusion, my view is that one needs a camera that keeps pace with ones abilities. Having a better camera from the outset wouldn't have improved my abilities any faster than my 600D did. It is very unlikely that a beginner will learn faster or become more skillful with a high-end camera.
Thank you for writing this, I think a lot more photographer dogmas need kicks in their butts. You know, like the 'never croppers' or so. Fun stuff.
Buy better tools, get better results. This is not rocket science.
So my opinion is definitely always better to overbuy in a general sense. This is not to argue that some folks simply don't believe in that, as that is immaterial/not a conversation.
It's kind of like buying a computer. You can get exact what you need or if the money is relative you can future proof it. Depending on your use case, the extra money may not be worth it or maybe you dispose of your computer every year for another one. There's so many variants it depends.
Buying the gear for where you're going as opposed to where you are now can always presumably be a good thing as it can cover both bases. Buying only for now obviously comes with the caveat that that tool is going to have to be tossed and completely replaced sooner than later. And when that later comes you may not have the resources to get that upgrade that you needed - or it might not even be available.
Years ago in Japan I was super frustrated because I didn't have a camera that had a flip out screen. I was taking so many landscapes while lying on the ground and coming up with all type of clever ways to put a mirror at the back of the screen so I could see if my lines are correct etc. So getting a camera with a flip out screen or so became my main priority. Now my main and my backup have flip screens and the capabilities of both cameras are better than the two cameras I had back then. For shooting low and other circumstances, my next trip will be much more successful in that regard.
A lil fun story:
Years ago after shooting a fashion show, an older gentleman in the press pit -who was shooting black and white by the way (!?)- turned around and showed us his image while he yelled out "Yeah that's in camera yeah!".
I looked at it and said cool. In the back of my mind I said who cares. :) Why are you shooting black and white images in a fashion show anyway.
Go figure.
I don't know. I started out shooting digital with a Kodak P&S, then a Canon superzoom. I went DSLR with an Olympus E-420, then 510, E-3, over to Canon with the 4OD then 7D then 5DII. Now I shoot with a 6D and various Fuji mirrorless.
But when I go back through my library some of the very best pictures I've taken have been with the lesser gear. Sure, the lighting has been good lower ISOs, but I'll wager most of us shoot according to the light. As for multiple focus points, I've never had the need or interest. One center point works well for me. And please, don't even bring up video, it's not photography.
I do not regret moving up through the camera ranks to get where I'm comfortable with a more than adequate 16-20 mega pixels. I still have, and use, a few of my older cameras (particularly the antiquated, obsolete, yet amazing Olympus E-1) and apparently others may agree with me, if you look at how hot the used camera market is.
Having used an entry level DSLR for some years now (EOS T6) I would have to agree with the basic premise of this article. The two things I constantly work around, and beginners would struggle with, are incredibly poor light metering and unreliable (and slow) autofocus. While many of the extra features of higher end cameras would be wasted on a beginner, the quality of the meters and AF in entry-level cameras is just not adequate for any slightly demanding situation (dusk, dawn, other low-light situations, sports or any moving subject, etc.).
However, the cost of good cameras, lenses, etc. has become totally unrealistic for the average photographer. In college I put together a rig with a used Canon T90 (before digital came along) and several lenses. To recreate a rig of similar quality and with the same focal length/f-stop combinations for lenses would cost about $15k -$20k today. The flash alone costs more than my T90 did! As a hobbyist there is no way I can afford that kind of money. Which is why I didn't buy a DSLR at all for years, just living with my phone as a point and shoot (and hating it a lot of the time). The camera I have now I actually won at a trade show, so didn't pay anything for it. The idea of purchasing a used body would make a lot of sense to me (used D750s are pretty reasonable now), except that the computer industry based nature of digital cameras makes their lifespan much shorter/less predictable than film cameras were.
Those are all fair points, Jeff. My son has a camera (Olympus OM-D E-M5) that dates from 2012, and it still takes great pictures. It's not as fast to focus, nor does it have the features available in my OM-1, but it it still a smashing camera and performs well. I only recently sold an E-M1 from 2013 and was using it as a backup camera. It was an award-winning pro-end model that still holds its own. You can pick later models, like the E-M1 Mark II with low shutter counts, for less than a new budget camera. Similarly so with other brands' models from that time. Top-end models will last much longer and you should get a good life out of them and they'll last longer than the low-end models.
Two weeks ago, I had a client who was shooting with a high-end DSLR camera dating from 2005.
Film cameras lasted longer if they were cared for because they shot a lot fewer frames.
Well done on the win.
the idea that the camera doesn't matter goes back to the days before digital photography. Before digital, the lens was more important than the camera. In the days of film, as long as the shutter worked properly and the box was light tight that was all that was needed, the quality of the photo came from the lens.
I respectfully but strongly disagree with this position. The thing to remember is that most people who buy that entry level camera will not become hard core hobbyists or professionals. People who move up from a smartphone camera for snapshots to more serious photography are still exploring the field.
First, they may well not know what they need or want -- not all cameras are built the same and I have had the unfortunate experience of buying a high-end camera only to find six months later that I wish I'd bought a different one. There are a *lot* of considerations involved with buying a high end camera -- obscure software features, what lenses are available, how it performs in specific circumstances, how it interfaces with other hardware, etc. I primarily do photomicrography. In my case, I spent $5000 on a camera only to find later that a lens it turned out I needed was not yet available, and the advertised adapter to my microscope didn't quite fit. It is almost impossible to keep the sensor clean. It is a pain to connect to my laptop. I *really* wish I'd started with a lower end camera by this manufacturer so I would have picked up on this and other issues. At least I'd know what I was getting into.
It's better to learn what's important to you in an expensive camera *before* you buy one. And you may not know what questions to ask as a newbie.
Second, they may not be as devoted to delving deep into things as they think. Having an inexpensive camera that works well and is easy to use will encourage someone to look deeper into the field. Having a camera that is complicated to use, expensive, and confusing to work will not.
You mention that you get superior sound out of an expensive guitar. That's great. You don't mention all those expensive guitars sitting in closets belonging to people who said "Hey, I think I'll pick up the guitar," and stick with it for six months. Or all those $5000 exercise machines that are primarily being used to hang clothes on.
I would agree that someone who has made the serious choice to become the best photographer he or she can be and is committed to work towards that, should get the best camera they can get that matches their needs. But I don't think it's a good idea to tell someone who says "Hey, I think I'll try this photography stuff out. It seems like it might be fun," that they need a few thousand dollars as an entry fee.
It's good advice, I think, to say that someone shouldn't necessarily buy the *cheapest* and *lowest* quality device they can buy, since they will run into unnecessary problems. Just as buying an overly complex, confusing, high maintenance, and finicky expensive camera can be discouraging to a beginner, so can the the flip side of having an unreliable, junky box that is prone to failure be frustrating. But there are plenty of medium and medium-low cost cameras available that will provide good introductions into how to do photography beyond the smartphone.
I don't think what he said about people who wasting time of their lives in meaninless and pathetic "it might be fun". He said about somebody who choose REAL photograpahy
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I started with a Vivitar v335. Very much entry-level, simple kit 35-70mm lense. I learned the fundamentals - exposure, aperture, film speeds, a few fun things with double-exposure. 35 years later I still have it - I used it to teach my nephews about focus, depth of field, to take their time composing and framing because in the Olden Days you had 36 chances, not 3600, and getting your film developed cost money.
True, these days my kit is a good deal more sophisticated, but there are times when the KR10x is the only thing that scratches my itch.
I agree that if you're going to make photography a passion then start with something you can grow into. But if all you want is snaps then entry-level is perfectly adequate. And if you want to be a wildlife photographer and tote 500mm lenses about with you, wait until you've learned to take pictures of things that don't need that kit. Your backyard is full of wildlife, and most of it moves pretty slowly. Learn to see what's there - a macro shot of a snail on a brick is, if executed well, as pleasing to the eye as that of a condor in flight.
Who uses the word hogwash?
It is a good term...right to the point! One of my all time favorites that I rarely use and rarely seen used is 'daft'. It's a kind of upper crust zing. :-)
I think "daft" was widely popular in the mid 1900s, but has been gradually falling out of mainstream usage for the past 60 years or so.
I sure do. I use it a couple times a month, both verbally when talking with friends and family, and also in typed form when writing comments online.
People with good vocabularies.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote and some of the comments from readers. I want to add another reality to this debate. I'm Brazilian and I live in Brazil. I need to work 5x harder to be able to buy quality equipment. The dollar here is very high and the exchange rate ruins my expectations of having better equipment.
Hi Rafael, Yes, that is very true. Thanks for raising that, I think big challenges must be faced by the industry to address some of the inequalities that hold some people in the world back.
Thank you for this article. When I looked for my first camera and seen all this advices, I totally lose my respect to photographers who say that things. I though "how can somebody be so stupid, you not buy some shitty bycicle if you wanna become great car driver". Now I see clearly, photographer give this advice because the lack self-confidence and are afraid of competition
An entertaining and provocative article which was fun to read! I am somewhere in the middle, I would advise people to go above the really cheap entry level cameras, but I wouldn't advise people to go for top of the range unless they knew what they wanted/needed and were making their own informed choice. The middle ground is a nice enthusiast level camera which offers good build and functionality without going silly. Cameras like the Sony A6700, Fujifilm X-S20, OM-5 and Nikon Z5 are all really nice cameras which while not cheap are attainable even if people need to save a bit longer and are cameras that can grow with you and are all the camera many will ever need. To me the key is whether a camera feels right in the hand, I know that's very personal and subjective but I find if I pick up a camera and it feels good I enjoy using it. And a camera you enjoy using is a good ownership proposition and more likely to help you get good results. That's why even though the Sony A6x00 series are superb in so many ways I've never really warmed to them, it's nothing wrong with them (I love their AF performance which is outstanding and their sturdy metal construction) but I just can't get used to the ergonomics. Conversely, many criticise Pentax for being backward and sticking with DSLR tech, yet whenever I pick up a K3 or K1 I can't help thinking 'I'd love one of these'.